Message-ID: <8A5E83DF-5C08-49CE-8EE3-08DC63135735@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:45:48 +0000
From:   Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To:     Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>
CC:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Adit Ranadive <aditr@...are.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>,
        Avihai Horon <avihaih@...dia.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Bernard Metzler <bmt@...ich.ibm.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...nelisnetworks.com>,
        Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@...adcom.com>,
        Faisal Latif <faisal.latif@...el.com>,
        Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@...os.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Lijun Ou <oulijun@...wei.com>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>,
        "Md. Haris Iqbal" <haris.iqbal@...os.com>,
        Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@...dia.com>,
        Michal Kalderon <mkalderon@...vell.com>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...nelisnetworks.com>,
        Naresh Kumar PBS <nareshkumar.pbs@...adcom.com>,
        Linux-Net <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Potnuri Bharat Teja <bharat@...lsio.com>,
        "rds-devel@....oracle.com" <rds-devel@....oracle.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        "samba-technical@...ts.samba.org" <samba-technical@...ts.samba.org>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>,
        Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@...adcom.com>,
        Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
        Somnath Kotur <somnath.kotur@...adcom.com>,
        Sriharsha Basavapatna <sriharsha.basavapatna@...adcom.com>,
        Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        VMware PV-Drivers <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
        Weihang Li <liweihang@...wei.com>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>,
        Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 00/10] Enable relaxed ordering for ULPs



> On Apr 9, 2021, at 10:26 AM, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com> wrote:
> 
> On 4/6/2021 7:49 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 11:42:31PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>  
>>> We need to get a better idea what correctness testing has been done,
>>> and whether positive correctness testing results can be replicated
>>> on a variety of platforms.
>> RO has been rolling out slowly on mlx5 over a few years and storage
>> ULPs are the last to change. eg the mlx5 ethernet driver has had RO
>> turned on for a long time, userspace HPC applications have been using
>> it for a while now too.
> 
> I'd love to see RO be used more, it was always something the RDMA
> specs supported and carefully architected for. My only concern is
> that it's difficult to get right, especially when the platforms
> have been running strictly-ordered for so long. The ULPs need
> testing, and a lot of it.
> 
>> We know there are platforms with broken RO implementations (like
>> Haswell) but the kernel is supposed to globally turn off RO on all
>> those cases. I'd be a bit surprised if we discover any more from this
>> series.
>> On the other hand there are platforms that get huge speed ups from
>> turning this on, AMD is one example, there are a bunch in the ARM
>> world too.
> 
> My belief is that the biggest risk is from situations where completions
> are batched, and therefore polling is used to detect them without
> interrupts (which explicitly). The RO pipeline will completely reorder
> DMA writes, and consumers which infer ordering from memory contents may
> break. This can even apply within the provider code, which may attempt
> to poll WR and CQ structures, and be tripped up.

You are referring specifically to RPC/RDMA depending on Receive
completions to guarantee that previous RDMA Writes have been
retired? Or is there a particular implementation practice in
the Linux RPC/RDMA code that worries you?


> The Mellanox adapter, itself, historically has strict in-order DMA
> semantics, and while it's great to relax that, changing it by default
> for all consumers is something to consider very cautiously.
> 
>> Still, obviously people should test on the platforms they have.
> 
> Yes, and "test" be taken seriously with focus on ULP data integrity.
> Speedups will mean nothing if the data is ever damaged.

I agree that data integrity comes first.

Since I currently don't have facilities to test RO in my lab, the
community will have to agree on a set of tests and expected results
that specifically exercise the corner cases you are concerned about.


--
Chuck Lever

Powered by blists - more mailing lists